This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The person who wrote the timeline knows nothing about the Yugoslav wars. Lets start with the obvious, he wrote that the 600th anniversary of the Battle of Kosovo was in 1987, eve though the battle was fought in 1389. Also, he said that the battle was celebrated only by nationalists, which is not true, the battle was celebrated by all Serbs, including Serb nationalists. The article is highly POV, and needs cleaning up. -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 01:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Operation Storm isn't ethnic cleansing??? OK, I totally disagree on this one, and so do my two best friends from Knin, who were FORCED from their homes, and lost relatives in early August 1995 in Knin. Please, if Serbs are calling Srebrenica ethnic cleansing, have the guts to admit that Storm was ethnic cleansing as well. -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 02:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Tell that to the 250,000 Serbs that were expelled from their homes. Oh, and in the ethnic cleansing article it says that "The term ethnic cleansing refers to various policies of forcibly removing people of one ethnic group". Tell me, did 250,000 Serbs leave just because the Serb gov't told them to do so? Or maybe the Croatian army forcibly removing Serbs (most likely). It doesn't matter how many were killed, that's not the definition of ethnic cleansing. Your arguments on this topic are bogus, and make no reasonable sense. I'm affraid that we can't cooperate anymore, because I can't work with someone who's just that ignorant of what really happened in Storm. I advise you to talk to people who went through the cleansing, hear their side of the story, and not only what Tudjman said (who I doubt cares about the people what were kicked out of Croatia), and what Mesic is, sadly, still saying... Have a nice day. -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 02:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh that's very nice Bormalagurski, just run when you find someone who doesn't share your POV. Let me quote another part of the article on ethnic cleansing - "At one end of the spectrum, it is virtually indistinguishable from forced emigration and population exchange, while at the other it merges with deportation and genocide." I think you'll agree that there was no genocide in Storm, and that the deportation was not conducted by Croatian forces. If you have references that say otherwise, I'd like to see them. And none of that bullshit Serbian nationalist revisionism. Btw, you, who don't even live in Croatia, and have probably never even been here, have the nerve to tell me I don't know shit about what happened in the Storm? Where do you get off? I've experienced war first hand, lad. So fine, if you don't want to cooperate we can do it the hard way, but don't think for one minute I'll let you spread lies and propaganda. I think I've shown I am trying my best to compromise. Can you say the same for yourself? -- Dr.Gonzo 02:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey, here's the fun part - my father is Croatian. I lived in Croatia for 2 years (in Rijeka), while it was still livable there for someone who was half-Serbian. So much for your intuition. You can't claim to be trying your best, when I've accepted your every proposal and did everything you said. But enough is enough. Storm is ethnic cleansing, and yes, even genocide (read the article), regardless of how many people were killed. If you admit to that, you'll see how ready I am to continue cooperating, but how can we continue if you're claiming that the biggest exodus of Serbs since WWII, was just a military operation (heck, the war in Rwanda was probably a military operation to you). So, to answer your question, yes, I am ready to compromise, I've accepted your every proposal, except this one, are you willing to go against your own principles, as I have up to now, in order to preserve the cooperation? -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 03:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Please, no personall attacks, don't call my opinion bullshit Serbian nationalist revisionism. Things like that can get a guy blocked... -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 03:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
OK. The only reason I'm excepting the terms exodus, exile, forced deportation because I know that if we don't continue cooperating, it's just going to be another edit war. Fine, I still think it's ethnic cleansing, but I won't push for that information to be in Wikipedia. In my opinion, when I said that I don't want to cooperate anymore because of conflicting opinions, you said what you really thought of me, and I expected that reaction. Well, I guess things will never be the same. Note that I never called your opinion nationalist, or perhaps bullshit. I know you'll never apologize, and I'm not asking for an apology. Most people in Croatia share your opinion, and you can't be blamed for having that opinion. Still, lets finish the job concerning Kristallnacht and human rights, and be done with it. Cheers, -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 03:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Apology accepted. -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 04:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
OK...I see where everyone is going on this one...I've tried to neutralize as best as possible...I've dropped Chetnik back in, because while Partisans is more neutral, there were also Chetniks involved...Let's all try and get this one right. There really were no winners in this whole affair, and all that's ended up happening is we have 5 (6?) countries that now have a stronger dislike (ahem) for each other. The only thing we can hope to do is to make an accurate "dispassionate" record of what happened. And hope that we can all learn from that... -- Mkamensek (talk) - The LeftOverChef 03:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I list the two versions, and then discuss each.
some, like Milan Babic, have already been found guilty. -- Dr.Gonzo 20:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Whatever, your version is also completely unacceptable, needs compromise. -- Dr.Gonzo 20:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I have replaced
in a three way conflict between Serbs, Muslims (Bosniaks) '(who even fought among themselves)' and Croats
with
factional in-fighting in all three ethnic groups at one time or another. in a three way conflict between Serbs, Muslims (Bosniaks) and Croats, 'with factional in-fighting in all three ethnic groups at one time or another'.
The previous statement creates the impression that it was only Muslims that fought among themselves when this occured among Serb (armed dispute between those that were loyal to Babic & those loyal to Hadzic in SAO Krajina) & Croat forces (HVO assasination of HOS leadership) as well. Have rectified sentence to reflect this information.
Perhaps a separate stubb linked to this page is a solution for expanding on this subject.
...is unendingly POV. It notes that there was an "Allied victory" as if there were Allies like during the World Wars. Additionally, it strangly puts the KLA, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and NATO on one side and Serbia and Montenegro on the other. But, the situation is far more intrigue and complicated - in BiH Serbs and Croats fought against the Muslims in Central Bosnia and Serbs and Muslims fought against Croats in Herzegovina - while Muslims fought amongst themselves in Western Bosnia (West Bosnia collaborating with the Serb Republic). And, there's no mention of any Yugoslavia (SFRY, FRY) amongst the combatants - nor the numerious entities that fought - RS, HB, FBiH, RSK, etc. The situation is far more complicated than this table blatantly and falsly represents. I suggest reworking the table - or totally removing it. -- HolyRomanEmperor 20:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Definitely not using ONE table. These are the wars that have in common that they were all on the territory on the former Yugoslavia; mostly the various (loyal to Slobodan Milošević) Serbs' armies were on one side, but not in all wars - 1993 war between HVO and B&H Muslim (Bosniac Muslim) forces ("Armija BiH"), but neither they fought against each other on all the battlefields, they even fought on the same side, they cooperated. However, you can't put all those wars in one table. E.g., Croatia wasn't the combatant on the Kosovo, neither was the KLA combatant against rebel Serbs in Croatia. Kubura 13:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to post a Documentary about the Yugoslav Civil War - It's watchable for free over a Link in the Internet alternatively an Online Stream - A Good Documentary about the Early History Up to the Civil War itself for everyone who is interested in this Stuff because it's very detailed .. and it is in English with Serbo-Croatian Subtitles - but i don't know where or how to post it exactly - I hope you can gimme a Hint on this, greets K-Pax
This documentary in the external links has parts which are biased and not encyclopediac, so I'm removing it for the time being until someone can offer an explanation for these links are useful for the article.-- Obvious 16:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Obvious
If we analyse the conflicts listed in the article to form bilateral conflicts, we have:
By "JNA" I mean JNA and JA, which was at the time of the conflicts controlled by the Serbian&Montenegrian leadership (i.e. Milošević), esp. after Slovenia. By "Serb paramilitry" I mean paramilitary troops funded, organised and originating from Serbia&Montenegro, rather than by local Serbs in Croatia or Bosnia. This does not imply that there were no paramilitary organisations fighting for other sides.
Out of this eight conflicts, only two or three (if you count Slovenia) can be classified as not involving Serbs. If you sort the list by casualties, the top four (Kosovo, Croatia, Serb-Croatian and Serb-Bosniak in Bosnia) will all include Serbs as one of the sides. All conflicts not involving Serbs resulted in union rather than separation, i.e. Federation of BiH and Republic of Macedonia. All other conflicts (except in Eastern Slavonia) ended up on bad terms (can't find better way to describe the idea, but I hope it gets through).
This is proof that this statement is true: Yugoslav Wars were characterised by bitter ethnic conflicts between the peoples of the former Yugoslavia, mostly between the Serbs or the Serb-controlled Yugoslav army and a different ethnic group: Slovenians, Croats, Bosniaks and Albanians. So it should be included in the article.
Hrvoje Šimić 06:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I have moved the timeline to a separate article: Timeline of the Yugoslav wars. The timeline had just grown too long, with lenghty prose and various interwining one-sided statements that it was not very readable. I have taken steps to achieve a higher standard. I propose to:
Hrvoje Šimić 14:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
In Croatia, the author Misha Glenny (the author of the term "Yugoslav Wars") is considered as, mildly said, "anti-Croat". Currently I don't have any links to confirm this, when I find ones (or if somebody puts something on the internet), I'll post them here. Kubura 13:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Funny you should say that, quite a few people consider him anti-Serb. -- estavisti 15:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
theres a surprise. anything vaguely NPOV that gets written on wikipedia is both anti-serb and anti-croat too! Jieagles 04:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Rewrote these sections and added more background to remove the POV that existed. Also removed section in timeline referring to Serb status in Croatian constitution as a constituent nation b/c it is erroneous. croatian_quoll 06:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Changed
The second in this series of conflicts, the
Croatian War of Independence was fought by nationalist elements, funded by Ustashe ([Ustashe]) and Chetniks
Chetniks in exile.
to
The second in this series of conflicts, the Croatian War of Independence was fought by competeing national elites, with significant funding by respective dijaspora communities, including in part by pro Chetniks Chetniks and Ustashe ([Ustashe]) elements in exile.
in order to reflect the relative influence these exile groups had within the broader dijaspora. iruka 06:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I added the "This article does not cite its references or sources" warning. I think these are much needed if the article is to move forward. I haven't been doing it myself, because I "knew" what really happened. Unfortunately, I'm not an expert historian, so in the end it really doesn't matter what I think. Hrvoje Šimić 15:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
…the article Serbophobia has been nominated for deletion for the fourth time. If you care, go there and place your vote. That’s it.-- MaGioZal 11:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Ivan, it was not the nationalism that caused the war.
Romantical national feelings were not the problem.
The expansionism was the problem.
All those warmongering started in Serbia, among Serb leadership, all under "endangerdness of Serb people" (ugroženost srpskog naroda, ugroženi Srbi). At first at Kosovo, later that "endangered Serbs" story (completely unfounded and untruth) was pointed to Croatia.
Maybe Croats have started with "meetings of Serbs and Montenegrins" ("mitinzi Srba i Crnogoraca s Kosova"), with all that iconography and rhetorics, expressed there? (BTW, that topic should have an article).
SR Croatia kept its mouth shut. Have you ever heard the term "hrvatska šutnja"? That term could be often found in the media from late 1980's.
What do you think, how long could Croatia tolerate such rhetorics (full of lies, and "invented things")? From those meetings and from leaderships of Communist Party of Vojvodina, Serbia, and Montenegro?
You weren't neither born then.
For God's sake, read the newspapers from those times! Especially you'll find it interesting reading various newspapers and magazines. Completely different stories. That was called "'informativni rat".
GreaterSerbian expansionism, imperialism was the problem.
Kubura
09:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
For those who still don't get it:
The war started those who had military advantage, who controlled the heavy weaponry and had international "connections". That was Serbia. You know very well where was total mobilisation declared. You know very well where from came all military corpses which invaded Croatia.
Maybe Croatia was in so good militar position (compared to Serbia and Montenegro), that it had interest to go into war?
Maybe Croatia had 200 military airplanes and 400 tanks, and Serbia, Montenegro and rebel Serbs none?
Maybe Croatia had strong military industry, and Serbia none at all?
Maybe Croatia had much better "connections" (compared to Serbia) in international community, through various international bodies, through all the elements of diplomacy?
Shall I add Bosnian Serbs-populated areas, to worsen the picture of "poor, innocent, weak Serbs"? Maybe federal army shelled Čačak, Kragujevac, Nikšić, Podgorica, Kikinda and Niš?
Rhetoric of Slobodan Milošević ("the interrepublic borders are only administrative"), as well as of those Serb and Serb-influenced Montenegrin leaders, was the one that spread ideas of territorial expansionism.
Maybe Croats have organized "log-revolution", aimed to destroy Croatian key export activity, tourism?
Maybe Bosnian Serb leader, Vučurević, that boasted with his shelling of Dubrovnik and scaring of tourists, did that by Croatian orders?
Shall we post here scanned pages of Serbian newspapers (it'll take some... a lot of time... to do that) with all that warmongering in it?
National feelings were not the problem, problem was territorial expansionism of Serbian leadership, as well as of one of Serbian academics ("Memorandum SANU").
Has someone forgot here all anti-Croat rhetoric in Serbian media? Whatever SR Croatia did towards its "being itself" (but without even thinking about independence!), they attacked it. Every SR Croatia's attempt to have its own way of development (but inside Yugoslavia!), in each area of social life, was hyperbolically stigmated as "ustashi" (an extremist WW2 movement).
Trolls should be blocked.
Kubura
10:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Nikola, how do you "know" that reference "troll" was pointed towards you? I referred that to someone else.
"...Total mobilisation was declared across entire Yugoslavia.". Please, cite sources.
"...JNA did not invade anything but was in Croatia all along...". Really? When military corps from Novi Sad and Belgrade go into Croatia, they didn't go on summer vacation. Further, read carefully the sources. And how the Serb generals disobeyed president Mesić's orders.
Regarding "Would you care to do the same with contemporary Croatian papers?" no problem, YOU said it yourself. You proposed that idea, I didn't do that already, because I've expected that criticism with arguments like "unneutral sources" 'll be said.
And, please, don't butcher someone's messages (with inserting the lines inbetween), rather insert your answer at the bottom. This way it's hard to follow who said what, almost impossible.
Kubura
11:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Regarding mobilisation.
On March 15, 1991, President of Presidency of SR Serbia, Slobodan Milošević, has said on TV Beograd (TV Beograd) that "Serbia won't recognize/respect the decisions of Presidency of SFR Yugoslavia anymore" ("Srbija više neće priznavati odluke Predsedništva SFRJ"). He also said on TV, that he ordered the mobilization of reserve forces of JNA in Serbia "in order to protect the interests of Serbia and Serb people" (kako bi se zaštitili interesi Srbije i srpskog naroda).
About the Serbian aggression...
On March 7, 1991, President of Presidency of Socialist Authonomic Province of Vojvodina, Jugoslav Kostić, speaking in front of all Councils of Parliament of Vojvodina "...If Croatia wants to leave Yugoslavia, it can, but without Serb people and its ethnic territories, where only Serb people is sovereign" ("Ako Hrvatska hoće iz Jugoslavije, može, ali bez srpskog naroda i njegovih etničkih teritorija, na kojima je samo on suveren).
Jugoslav Kostić continued "We won't allow that Serb people 'll be national minority. Neither in Croatia, neither in Bosnia and Herzegovina ("Ni po koju cijenu nećemo dopustiti da srpski narod bude nacionalna manjina ni u Hrvatskoj ni u BiH").
Later, all three Councils of Vojvodina Parliament brought the conclusions, in which was said that "It is the historical right of Serb people to live in one country"(!!!).
And there's a lot more...
Sorry if I haven't translated ideally, I'm not iurist. But the Serb users 'll know very well what I've wanted to say. They can check this.
Kubura
22:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Well this article definitely doesnt sound encyclopedic with statements like The second in this series of conflicts, the Croatian War of Independence, occurred when rebel Serbs started to take control over some parts of Croatia. Yugoslav People's Army pretended[citation needed] to mediate between rebel Serbs and Croatian government forces, before completely taking the Serbian side. We should avoid using subjective terms like 'pretended'.
Seondly this article is too short for an event of its importance. It doesnt even cover the events Bosnia. Alternately we can base this article on the lines of Indo-Pakistani Wars and move all info to the main articles about each war.
Amey Aryan DaBrood © 21:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I've just discovered the existence of Breakup of Yugoslavia article, which is fairly extensive (disclaimer: I didn't read it so I can't comment on accuracy and POV) but barely wikilinked. There is a lot of overlap between the two, though. I see several possibilities:
Duja ► 15:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
There are several problems in the section, but let's start from the beginning:
No, they were not. The Yugoslav wars were triggered by separation of Slovenia and Croatia from Yugoslavia. Milosevic's politics were aimed at strengthening federal authorities, and not giving more control to Serbia.
Nikola? Questionable federalism among partisans movement? Then where from all those ZAVNO's came?
How the Communist Party was organised before the war?
Still, I agree that there were unitarist tendencies and fractions in the partisans movement, as well as in the Communist Party leadership.
"Tito created republics specificall...enable separation..."????? Communist Party also dealt with nationality questions, at least at the beginning. They knew what kind of problems Kingdom of Yugoslavia had with Serbian hegemonism.
Kubura
19:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
It's all Laibach's fault. Just ask them. -- chaizzilla 17:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Memorandum of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts is a fabrication. SANU never published the memorandum. The document was a draft made by several SANU members "leaked" to the press. Either way, there is no evidence that it influenced subsequent policies.
Their proposals would have led to a confederation, and it is likely that they would declare independence anyway. Nikola 11:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
"...the war itself was not started until the declaration of independence by Slovenia..."? Wrong.
Some users here think that till the declaration of independence of Croatia and Slovenia, "everything was flourishing and birds were singing".
War started much earlier.
Whose military airjets intervened, prevented legal Croatian authorities (police helicopters), when Croatian police went to solve things in rebelled areas? There're more examples.
Kubura
09:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The page is getting too large, we should archive the sections that aren't discussed recently.
Second, the "combatants" part in the template shows how inconvenient and senceless is this article, and how inconvenient is to put all the (para)military activities on the territory that used to be Yugoslavia, before and after its dissolution.
E.g.: Croats and Slovenia on one side, and Macedonia on the other side??
When were Croatia and Slovenia in the war against Macedonia?
Kubura
19:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
This article has general problems: it encompasses various wars that only one thing have in common: their theatre was the territory of the former Yugoslavia.
There are "groups of" wars that had more things in common:
First is Serbian/Serbian-led military campaign (Serbian aggression) on republics that proclaimed independence, with the intention of conquering theirs territory and phyisical elimination of non-Serb population (either by expulsion or by killing).
Second are Albanian independence wars. The latter are with Serbia, on Kosovo and Preševo valley area, and in western Macedonia. Point is, the last three appeared "independently", not at the same time. Every area for herself.
The term "Yugoslav wars" is too general, it's too generalizing, it overgeneralizes things.
Kubura
09:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Although this is off topic, searching "balkan war" should not be directed to Yugoslav wars. The three balkan wars right before World War one, though some consider the third the start of WWI. They were fought over the Ottoman controlled lands of Macedonia and Albania by the balkan countries.
I suggest that the casus belli in the article should include 'ethnic tension'. You might have received this suggestion before, I don't know. Undoubtedly, nationalism deserves to be an extremely important reason for war, but people like Slobodan Milosevic used ethnic tensions to get people to support Serbian expansion throughout the former Yugoslavia. Therefore, for the specific circumstances of nationalism within Yugoslavia, ethnic tension was a root cause.
Also, the very fact that the war was a war between combatants based on their ethnic allegiance, means that ethnicity must feature as a cause of the war. If it were just nationalism, then why didn't Croats kill Croats, or Serbs killed Serbs?
It seems that there is scope for debating why ethnic tensions should be included in the casus belli; so I put this thread up here so we can discuss.
EasyPeasy21 12:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
As someone tired of fighting the losing battle to keep things somewhat neutral on this page, I welcome the addition of "ethnic tension" to the casus belli box. I would only caution readers against assuming that the "ethnic tension" was strong enough to start a war before Milošević, Tuđman, Izetbegović et al. latched onto it and promoted it for their own ends (cases can be made on either side). Of course, any implication that the Slovenian and Croatian leaderships were perfectly happy with the situation until Milošević got nationalistic is flatly wrong, and any "ethnic tensions" covered here would have to include the Croatian and Slovenian anti-Serb sentiment that helped cement the secession movements. Whatever the disagreement here, the current edit is certainly preferable to the incendiary and unbalanced "Serbian nationalism" claim that's been plaguing the box for so long, and I like the fact that the editor has opened up a discussion about it. Hubacelgrand 19:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for approving my edit. :) I agree that anti-Serb tension was just as extreme as Serbian hostility. I believe that the phrase "ethnic tension", is generic enough to include all forms of ethnic conflict between each sides. EasyPeasy21 13:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The person who wrote the timeline knows nothing about the Yugoslav wars. Lets start with the obvious, he wrote that the 600th anniversary of the Battle of Kosovo was in 1987, eve though the battle was fought in 1389. Also, he said that the battle was celebrated only by nationalists, which is not true, the battle was celebrated by all Serbs, including Serb nationalists. The article is highly POV, and needs cleaning up. -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 01:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Operation Storm isn't ethnic cleansing??? OK, I totally disagree on this one, and so do my two best friends from Knin, who were FORCED from their homes, and lost relatives in early August 1995 in Knin. Please, if Serbs are calling Srebrenica ethnic cleansing, have the guts to admit that Storm was ethnic cleansing as well. -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 02:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Tell that to the 250,000 Serbs that were expelled from their homes. Oh, and in the ethnic cleansing article it says that "The term ethnic cleansing refers to various policies of forcibly removing people of one ethnic group". Tell me, did 250,000 Serbs leave just because the Serb gov't told them to do so? Or maybe the Croatian army forcibly removing Serbs (most likely). It doesn't matter how many were killed, that's not the definition of ethnic cleansing. Your arguments on this topic are bogus, and make no reasonable sense. I'm affraid that we can't cooperate anymore, because I can't work with someone who's just that ignorant of what really happened in Storm. I advise you to talk to people who went through the cleansing, hear their side of the story, and not only what Tudjman said (who I doubt cares about the people what were kicked out of Croatia), and what Mesic is, sadly, still saying... Have a nice day. -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 02:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh that's very nice Bormalagurski, just run when you find someone who doesn't share your POV. Let me quote another part of the article on ethnic cleansing - "At one end of the spectrum, it is virtually indistinguishable from forced emigration and population exchange, while at the other it merges with deportation and genocide." I think you'll agree that there was no genocide in Storm, and that the deportation was not conducted by Croatian forces. If you have references that say otherwise, I'd like to see them. And none of that bullshit Serbian nationalist revisionism. Btw, you, who don't even live in Croatia, and have probably never even been here, have the nerve to tell me I don't know shit about what happened in the Storm? Where do you get off? I've experienced war first hand, lad. So fine, if you don't want to cooperate we can do it the hard way, but don't think for one minute I'll let you spread lies and propaganda. I think I've shown I am trying my best to compromise. Can you say the same for yourself? -- Dr.Gonzo 02:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey, here's the fun part - my father is Croatian. I lived in Croatia for 2 years (in Rijeka), while it was still livable there for someone who was half-Serbian. So much for your intuition. You can't claim to be trying your best, when I've accepted your every proposal and did everything you said. But enough is enough. Storm is ethnic cleansing, and yes, even genocide (read the article), regardless of how many people were killed. If you admit to that, you'll see how ready I am to continue cooperating, but how can we continue if you're claiming that the biggest exodus of Serbs since WWII, was just a military operation (heck, the war in Rwanda was probably a military operation to you). So, to answer your question, yes, I am ready to compromise, I've accepted your every proposal, except this one, are you willing to go against your own principles, as I have up to now, in order to preserve the cooperation? -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 03:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
P.S. Please, no personall attacks, don't call my opinion bullshit Serbian nationalist revisionism. Things like that can get a guy blocked... -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 03:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
OK. The only reason I'm excepting the terms exodus, exile, forced deportation because I know that if we don't continue cooperating, it's just going to be another edit war. Fine, I still think it's ethnic cleansing, but I won't push for that information to be in Wikipedia. In my opinion, when I said that I don't want to cooperate anymore because of conflicting opinions, you said what you really thought of me, and I expected that reaction. Well, I guess things will never be the same. Note that I never called your opinion nationalist, or perhaps bullshit. I know you'll never apologize, and I'm not asking for an apology. Most people in Croatia share your opinion, and you can't be blamed for having that opinion. Still, lets finish the job concerning Kristallnacht and human rights, and be done with it. Cheers, -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 03:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Apology accepted. -- Boris Malagurski ₪ 04:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
OK...I see where everyone is going on this one...I've tried to neutralize as best as possible...I've dropped Chetnik back in, because while Partisans is more neutral, there were also Chetniks involved...Let's all try and get this one right. There really were no winners in this whole affair, and all that's ended up happening is we have 5 (6?) countries that now have a stronger dislike (ahem) for each other. The only thing we can hope to do is to make an accurate "dispassionate" record of what happened. And hope that we can all learn from that... -- Mkamensek (talk) - The LeftOverChef 03:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I list the two versions, and then discuss each.
some, like Milan Babic, have already been found guilty. -- Dr.Gonzo 20:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Whatever, your version is also completely unacceptable, needs compromise. -- Dr.Gonzo 20:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I have replaced
in a three way conflict between Serbs, Muslims (Bosniaks) '(who even fought among themselves)' and Croats
with
factional in-fighting in all three ethnic groups at one time or another. in a three way conflict between Serbs, Muslims (Bosniaks) and Croats, 'with factional in-fighting in all three ethnic groups at one time or another'.
The previous statement creates the impression that it was only Muslims that fought among themselves when this occured among Serb (armed dispute between those that were loyal to Babic & those loyal to Hadzic in SAO Krajina) & Croat forces (HVO assasination of HOS leadership) as well. Have rectified sentence to reflect this information.
Perhaps a separate stubb linked to this page is a solution for expanding on this subject.
...is unendingly POV. It notes that there was an "Allied victory" as if there were Allies like during the World Wars. Additionally, it strangly puts the KLA, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and NATO on one side and Serbia and Montenegro on the other. But, the situation is far more intrigue and complicated - in BiH Serbs and Croats fought against the Muslims in Central Bosnia and Serbs and Muslims fought against Croats in Herzegovina - while Muslims fought amongst themselves in Western Bosnia (West Bosnia collaborating with the Serb Republic). And, there's no mention of any Yugoslavia (SFRY, FRY) amongst the combatants - nor the numerious entities that fought - RS, HB, FBiH, RSK, etc. The situation is far more complicated than this table blatantly and falsly represents. I suggest reworking the table - or totally removing it. -- HolyRomanEmperor 20:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Definitely not using ONE table. These are the wars that have in common that they were all on the territory on the former Yugoslavia; mostly the various (loyal to Slobodan Milošević) Serbs' armies were on one side, but not in all wars - 1993 war between HVO and B&H Muslim (Bosniac Muslim) forces ("Armija BiH"), but neither they fought against each other on all the battlefields, they even fought on the same side, they cooperated. However, you can't put all those wars in one table. E.g., Croatia wasn't the combatant on the Kosovo, neither was the KLA combatant against rebel Serbs in Croatia. Kubura 13:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to post a Documentary about the Yugoslav Civil War - It's watchable for free over a Link in the Internet alternatively an Online Stream - A Good Documentary about the Early History Up to the Civil War itself for everyone who is interested in this Stuff because it's very detailed .. and it is in English with Serbo-Croatian Subtitles - but i don't know where or how to post it exactly - I hope you can gimme a Hint on this, greets K-Pax
This documentary in the external links has parts which are biased and not encyclopediac, so I'm removing it for the time being until someone can offer an explanation for these links are useful for the article.-- Obvious 16:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Obvious
If we analyse the conflicts listed in the article to form bilateral conflicts, we have:
By "JNA" I mean JNA and JA, which was at the time of the conflicts controlled by the Serbian&Montenegrian leadership (i.e. Milošević), esp. after Slovenia. By "Serb paramilitry" I mean paramilitary troops funded, organised and originating from Serbia&Montenegro, rather than by local Serbs in Croatia or Bosnia. This does not imply that there were no paramilitary organisations fighting for other sides.
Out of this eight conflicts, only two or three (if you count Slovenia) can be classified as not involving Serbs. If you sort the list by casualties, the top four (Kosovo, Croatia, Serb-Croatian and Serb-Bosniak in Bosnia) will all include Serbs as one of the sides. All conflicts not involving Serbs resulted in union rather than separation, i.e. Federation of BiH and Republic of Macedonia. All other conflicts (except in Eastern Slavonia) ended up on bad terms (can't find better way to describe the idea, but I hope it gets through).
This is proof that this statement is true: Yugoslav Wars were characterised by bitter ethnic conflicts between the peoples of the former Yugoslavia, mostly between the Serbs or the Serb-controlled Yugoslav army and a different ethnic group: Slovenians, Croats, Bosniaks and Albanians. So it should be included in the article.
Hrvoje Šimić 06:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I have moved the timeline to a separate article: Timeline of the Yugoslav wars. The timeline had just grown too long, with lenghty prose and various interwining one-sided statements that it was not very readable. I have taken steps to achieve a higher standard. I propose to:
Hrvoje Šimić 14:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
In Croatia, the author Misha Glenny (the author of the term "Yugoslav Wars") is considered as, mildly said, "anti-Croat". Currently I don't have any links to confirm this, when I find ones (or if somebody puts something on the internet), I'll post them here. Kubura 13:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Funny you should say that, quite a few people consider him anti-Serb. -- estavisti 15:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
theres a surprise. anything vaguely NPOV that gets written on wikipedia is both anti-serb and anti-croat too! Jieagles 04:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Rewrote these sections and added more background to remove the POV that existed. Also removed section in timeline referring to Serb status in Croatian constitution as a constituent nation b/c it is erroneous. croatian_quoll 06:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Changed
The second in this series of conflicts, the
Croatian War of Independence was fought by nationalist elements, funded by Ustashe ([Ustashe]) and Chetniks
Chetniks in exile.
to
The second in this series of conflicts, the Croatian War of Independence was fought by competeing national elites, with significant funding by respective dijaspora communities, including in part by pro Chetniks Chetniks and Ustashe ([Ustashe]) elements in exile.
in order to reflect the relative influence these exile groups had within the broader dijaspora. iruka 06:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I added the "This article does not cite its references or sources" warning. I think these are much needed if the article is to move forward. I haven't been doing it myself, because I "knew" what really happened. Unfortunately, I'm not an expert historian, so in the end it really doesn't matter what I think. Hrvoje Šimić 15:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
…the article Serbophobia has been nominated for deletion for the fourth time. If you care, go there and place your vote. That’s it.-- MaGioZal 11:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Ivan, it was not the nationalism that caused the war.
Romantical national feelings were not the problem.
The expansionism was the problem.
All those warmongering started in Serbia, among Serb leadership, all under "endangerdness of Serb people" (ugroženost srpskog naroda, ugroženi Srbi). At first at Kosovo, later that "endangered Serbs" story (completely unfounded and untruth) was pointed to Croatia.
Maybe Croats have started with "meetings of Serbs and Montenegrins" ("mitinzi Srba i Crnogoraca s Kosova"), with all that iconography and rhetorics, expressed there? (BTW, that topic should have an article).
SR Croatia kept its mouth shut. Have you ever heard the term "hrvatska šutnja"? That term could be often found in the media from late 1980's.
What do you think, how long could Croatia tolerate such rhetorics (full of lies, and "invented things")? From those meetings and from leaderships of Communist Party of Vojvodina, Serbia, and Montenegro?
You weren't neither born then.
For God's sake, read the newspapers from those times! Especially you'll find it interesting reading various newspapers and magazines. Completely different stories. That was called "'informativni rat".
GreaterSerbian expansionism, imperialism was the problem.
Kubura
09:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
For those who still don't get it:
The war started those who had military advantage, who controlled the heavy weaponry and had international "connections". That was Serbia. You know very well where was total mobilisation declared. You know very well where from came all military corpses which invaded Croatia.
Maybe Croatia was in so good militar position (compared to Serbia and Montenegro), that it had interest to go into war?
Maybe Croatia had 200 military airplanes and 400 tanks, and Serbia, Montenegro and rebel Serbs none?
Maybe Croatia had strong military industry, and Serbia none at all?
Maybe Croatia had much better "connections" (compared to Serbia) in international community, through various international bodies, through all the elements of diplomacy?
Shall I add Bosnian Serbs-populated areas, to worsen the picture of "poor, innocent, weak Serbs"? Maybe federal army shelled Čačak, Kragujevac, Nikšić, Podgorica, Kikinda and Niš?
Rhetoric of Slobodan Milošević ("the interrepublic borders are only administrative"), as well as of those Serb and Serb-influenced Montenegrin leaders, was the one that spread ideas of territorial expansionism.
Maybe Croats have organized "log-revolution", aimed to destroy Croatian key export activity, tourism?
Maybe Bosnian Serb leader, Vučurević, that boasted with his shelling of Dubrovnik and scaring of tourists, did that by Croatian orders?
Shall we post here scanned pages of Serbian newspapers (it'll take some... a lot of time... to do that) with all that warmongering in it?
National feelings were not the problem, problem was territorial expansionism of Serbian leadership, as well as of one of Serbian academics ("Memorandum SANU").
Has someone forgot here all anti-Croat rhetoric in Serbian media? Whatever SR Croatia did towards its "being itself" (but without even thinking about independence!), they attacked it. Every SR Croatia's attempt to have its own way of development (but inside Yugoslavia!), in each area of social life, was hyperbolically stigmated as "ustashi" (an extremist WW2 movement).
Trolls should be blocked.
Kubura
10:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Nikola, how do you "know" that reference "troll" was pointed towards you? I referred that to someone else.
"...Total mobilisation was declared across entire Yugoslavia.". Please, cite sources.
"...JNA did not invade anything but was in Croatia all along...". Really? When military corps from Novi Sad and Belgrade go into Croatia, they didn't go on summer vacation. Further, read carefully the sources. And how the Serb generals disobeyed president Mesić's orders.
Regarding "Would you care to do the same with contemporary Croatian papers?" no problem, YOU said it yourself. You proposed that idea, I didn't do that already, because I've expected that criticism with arguments like "unneutral sources" 'll be said.
And, please, don't butcher someone's messages (with inserting the lines inbetween), rather insert your answer at the bottom. This way it's hard to follow who said what, almost impossible.
Kubura
11:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Regarding mobilisation.
On March 15, 1991, President of Presidency of SR Serbia, Slobodan Milošević, has said on TV Beograd (TV Beograd) that "Serbia won't recognize/respect the decisions of Presidency of SFR Yugoslavia anymore" ("Srbija više neće priznavati odluke Predsedništva SFRJ"). He also said on TV, that he ordered the mobilization of reserve forces of JNA in Serbia "in order to protect the interests of Serbia and Serb people" (kako bi se zaštitili interesi Srbije i srpskog naroda).
About the Serbian aggression...
On March 7, 1991, President of Presidency of Socialist Authonomic Province of Vojvodina, Jugoslav Kostić, speaking in front of all Councils of Parliament of Vojvodina "...If Croatia wants to leave Yugoslavia, it can, but without Serb people and its ethnic territories, where only Serb people is sovereign" ("Ako Hrvatska hoće iz Jugoslavije, može, ali bez srpskog naroda i njegovih etničkih teritorija, na kojima je samo on suveren).
Jugoslav Kostić continued "We won't allow that Serb people 'll be national minority. Neither in Croatia, neither in Bosnia and Herzegovina ("Ni po koju cijenu nećemo dopustiti da srpski narod bude nacionalna manjina ni u Hrvatskoj ni u BiH").
Later, all three Councils of Vojvodina Parliament brought the conclusions, in which was said that "It is the historical right of Serb people to live in one country"(!!!).
And there's a lot more...
Sorry if I haven't translated ideally, I'm not iurist. But the Serb users 'll know very well what I've wanted to say. They can check this.
Kubura
22:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Well this article definitely doesnt sound encyclopedic with statements like The second in this series of conflicts, the Croatian War of Independence, occurred when rebel Serbs started to take control over some parts of Croatia. Yugoslav People's Army pretended[citation needed] to mediate between rebel Serbs and Croatian government forces, before completely taking the Serbian side. We should avoid using subjective terms like 'pretended'.
Seondly this article is too short for an event of its importance. It doesnt even cover the events Bosnia. Alternately we can base this article on the lines of Indo-Pakistani Wars and move all info to the main articles about each war.
Amey Aryan DaBrood © 21:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I've just discovered the existence of Breakup of Yugoslavia article, which is fairly extensive (disclaimer: I didn't read it so I can't comment on accuracy and POV) but barely wikilinked. There is a lot of overlap between the two, though. I see several possibilities:
Duja ► 15:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
There are several problems in the section, but let's start from the beginning:
No, they were not. The Yugoslav wars were triggered by separation of Slovenia and Croatia from Yugoslavia. Milosevic's politics were aimed at strengthening federal authorities, and not giving more control to Serbia.
Nikola? Questionable federalism among partisans movement? Then where from all those ZAVNO's came?
How the Communist Party was organised before the war?
Still, I agree that there were unitarist tendencies and fractions in the partisans movement, as well as in the Communist Party leadership.
"Tito created republics specificall...enable separation..."????? Communist Party also dealt with nationality questions, at least at the beginning. They knew what kind of problems Kingdom of Yugoslavia had with Serbian hegemonism.
Kubura
19:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
It's all Laibach's fault. Just ask them. -- chaizzilla 17:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Memorandum of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts is a fabrication. SANU never published the memorandum. The document was a draft made by several SANU members "leaked" to the press. Either way, there is no evidence that it influenced subsequent policies.
Their proposals would have led to a confederation, and it is likely that they would declare independence anyway. Nikola 11:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
"...the war itself was not started until the declaration of independence by Slovenia..."? Wrong.
Some users here think that till the declaration of independence of Croatia and Slovenia, "everything was flourishing and birds were singing".
War started much earlier.
Whose military airjets intervened, prevented legal Croatian authorities (police helicopters), when Croatian police went to solve things in rebelled areas? There're more examples.
Kubura
09:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
The page is getting too large, we should archive the sections that aren't discussed recently.
Second, the "combatants" part in the template shows how inconvenient and senceless is this article, and how inconvenient is to put all the (para)military activities on the territory that used to be Yugoslavia, before and after its dissolution.
E.g.: Croats and Slovenia on one side, and Macedonia on the other side??
When were Croatia and Slovenia in the war against Macedonia?
Kubura
19:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
This article has general problems: it encompasses various wars that only one thing have in common: their theatre was the territory of the former Yugoslavia.
There are "groups of" wars that had more things in common:
First is Serbian/Serbian-led military campaign (Serbian aggression) on republics that proclaimed independence, with the intention of conquering theirs territory and phyisical elimination of non-Serb population (either by expulsion or by killing).
Second are Albanian independence wars. The latter are with Serbia, on Kosovo and Preševo valley area, and in western Macedonia. Point is, the last three appeared "independently", not at the same time. Every area for herself.
The term "Yugoslav wars" is too general, it's too generalizing, it overgeneralizes things.
Kubura
09:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Although this is off topic, searching "balkan war" should not be directed to Yugoslav wars. The three balkan wars right before World War one, though some consider the third the start of WWI. They were fought over the Ottoman controlled lands of Macedonia and Albania by the balkan countries.
I suggest that the casus belli in the article should include 'ethnic tension'. You might have received this suggestion before, I don't know. Undoubtedly, nationalism deserves to be an extremely important reason for war, but people like Slobodan Milosevic used ethnic tensions to get people to support Serbian expansion throughout the former Yugoslavia. Therefore, for the specific circumstances of nationalism within Yugoslavia, ethnic tension was a root cause.
Also, the very fact that the war was a war between combatants based on their ethnic allegiance, means that ethnicity must feature as a cause of the war. If it were just nationalism, then why didn't Croats kill Croats, or Serbs killed Serbs?
It seems that there is scope for debating why ethnic tensions should be included in the casus belli; so I put this thread up here so we can discuss.
EasyPeasy21 12:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
As someone tired of fighting the losing battle to keep things somewhat neutral on this page, I welcome the addition of "ethnic tension" to the casus belli box. I would only caution readers against assuming that the "ethnic tension" was strong enough to start a war before Milošević, Tuđman, Izetbegović et al. latched onto it and promoted it for their own ends (cases can be made on either side). Of course, any implication that the Slovenian and Croatian leaderships were perfectly happy with the situation until Milošević got nationalistic is flatly wrong, and any "ethnic tensions" covered here would have to include the Croatian and Slovenian anti-Serb sentiment that helped cement the secession movements. Whatever the disagreement here, the current edit is certainly preferable to the incendiary and unbalanced "Serbian nationalism" claim that's been plaguing the box for so long, and I like the fact that the editor has opened up a discussion about it. Hubacelgrand 19:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for approving my edit. :) I agree that anti-Serb tension was just as extreme as Serbian hostility. I believe that the phrase "ethnic tension", is generic enough to include all forms of ethnic conflict between each sides. EasyPeasy21 13:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)